Bend Planning Commission recommends city council adopt broad development-code updates

The Bend Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council approve a broad set of legislative amendments to the Bend Development Code after a public hearing that included staff presentations and public testimony from park district staff, a local architect and other community members.

Commission staff described the package as a consolidating and clarifying set of changes rather than new policy in many areas. "We codified a quasi‑judicial type 3 city council process" for major master plans and "created a new chapter for interpretations and determinations," staff told the commission. Staff also said they had adjusted several numeric standards and process timelines to make review more predictable for applicants and staff.

Why it matters: The amendments affect land‑use procedures, design review, small‑scale housing additions, utility and stormwater rules, and the Deschutes River design‑review process. Several items discussed at length have direct effects on downtown character (glazing/transparency rules in the Bend Central District), wildfire preparedness (tree‑removal procedures in Upland Areas of Special Interest, or ASIs), and multifamily development (bicycle‑parking and minimum development standards).

Key changes described by staff - Process and timing: The draft consolidates review authorities in one place and adds extensions and explicit approval durations. Staff proposed reducing the time window for approved subdivisions to develop under prior standards from three years to one year and adds new extension rules for site plan and land‑division approvals. - Interpretations and determinations: A new chapter creates a formal process for applicants to seek written interpretations of code provisions, determinations of nonconforming uses, and similar‑use determinations. - Housing and minimum development standards (MDS): The amendments implement a council housing goal by allowing certain small additions to multifamily properties to be reviewed under a simplified MDS process rather than full site‑plan review, intended to speed “missing middle” and infill work. - Bend Central District glazing exemption: Staff and the Core Area Advisory Board negotiated an exemption for exterior alterations that would be exempt from design review if they retain a minimum of existing transparency. Staff proposed language that would exempt alterations with “no more than a 50% net reduction in transparency glazing” and clarified intent to reference Ground Floor transparency requirements in the underlying zone. - Deschutes River design review and tree removal: The river design review process (including some tree‑removal submittal requirements) has been relocated to the process chapter. Staff proposed a limited type 1 procedure for removal of hazardous or diseased trees and firebreak work. Bend Park & Recreation District representatives urged a broader, faster path for fuel‑reduction work in upland ASIs and recommended exempting public agencies from review; staff said they have an urban forester on staff and are open to pursuing targeted code changes but advised that statutory limits determine which matters can be treated as type 1. - Design, materials and other technical changes: The package clarifies when architectural design standards apply (for example, the 40‑foot rule), adjusts some dimensional standards (rear setbacks in low‑density residential from 20 to 10 feet), adds fiber cement (and staff proposed adding metal panels to the materials list for certain façades), clarifies overhead‑door widths, and deletes some conditional‑use permit triggers (for example, retail buildings over 50,000 square feet in a convenience commercial district). - Parking, stormwater and utilities: The draft reorganizes bicycle‑parking requirements (long‑term vs. short‑term), gives more options to meet tree‑coverage/solar siting on large surface parking lots, references the Bend Engineering Manual (BEM) for stormwater, and allows some overhead utilities to remain for minimum‑standard projects while requiring undergrounding when mains are extended.

Public testimony and commission debate Park‑district staff asked the commission to include upland ASIs explicitly in a simpler review path for fuels reduction and to consider exempting public agencies from review for projects using professionally prepared prescriptions. Sarah Vanselnitz of the park district said the current code "delays our projects. It costs taxpayers more money and it slows down essential wildfire preparedness." Sarah Hickman, Bend Park & Recreation District natural resources and trails manager, made similar remarks about the need to speed removal and fuels work in upland ASIs.

An architect who testified, Brad Thomas, supported the bicycle‑infrastructure goals but urged flexibility for multifamily developments, noting required short‑term bicycle spaces near primary entries can create effective setbacks that complicate infill site layouts.

Commissioners and staff debated the appropriate threshold for the Bend Central glazing exemption (25%, 50% or 75% were discussed) and landed on staff‑proposed language that would tie the exemption to a percentage net reduction and the underlying zone’s minimum transparency standards; staff indicated they would refine that wording before the council hearing. Commissioners also discussed metal siding and reflective materials, driveway length standards (reduced from 30 to 20 feet in the draft), landscaping deferrals (bumped from six to eight months), and the need to ensure the code remains consistent with state statutes and administrative rules.

Formal action A commissioner moved to recommend that the City Council approve the legislative amendments to the Bend Development Code as prepared by staff. The motion was seconded and the commission voted to recommend approval. The commission’s recommendation and packet will go to the City Council; staff noted the council hearing is scheduled for Nov. 5.

What happens next Staff said they will refine drafting details (including the glazing‑exemption language and cross‑references to underlying transparency requirements) before the Nov. 5 council hearing. Staff also said they will bring a focused review of the upland ASI/tree review language to council in October as part of an upcoming tree‑code implementation report and will consider whether targeted type‑1 changes are legally and administratively appropriate.

Commissioners and staff flagged a handful of follow‑up items for future work: clarifying how building height is measured for sloped roofs, reviewing bicycle‑parking impacts on infill housing production, and a broader update to the upland ASI chapter focused on wildfire resiliency.

Ending: The commission’s recommendation transmits a long and technical draft to council with several framing edits requested by commissioners; staff will return to City Council on Nov. 5 with final ordinance language and any refined edits the commission directed staff to make.